Catholicity of the Early Church

[ChrisB103]

I’m thoroughly enjoying the dialogue here, thanks to all who are participating. One comment: let’s not continue to make Iggy defend the Baptist faith since he has said multiple times that he is moving away from a Baptist understanding.

I have one question for you, Iggy, if you wouldn’t mind making a brief detour. What canon do you accept and why?

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

Both religious and secular history record a Pope (bishop of Rome) existing in every age since the resurrection of Jesus.

Both religious and secular history record an unbroken apostolic successor to St.Peter in the apostolic succession of the Popes to today.

Peter’s apostolic see presided by in the Popes is the only apostolic see that has never fallen into error. Even though the gates of hell came against him, the gates of hell never prevailed.

Jesus builds his church upon Peter, gives Peter only the keys of the kingdom of heaven singularly apart from all the other apostles who were present when Jesus gave them to Peter alone.

After the resurrection Jesus appoints Peter alone in the presence of all the apostles to feed, tend his flock on earth until he returns.

Matthew 16:17Jesus said to him in reply, “Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah. For flesh and blood* has not revealed this to you, but my heavenly Father. 18k And so I say to you, you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of the netherworld shall not prevail against it. 19l I will give you the keys to the kingdom of heaven. **Whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven; and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.”

John 21:15When they had finished breakfast, Jesus said to Simon Peter,* “Simon, son of John, do you love me more than these?”* He said to him, “Yes, Lord, you know that I love you.” He said to him, “Feed my lambs.” 16** He then said to him a second time, **“Simon, son of John, do you love me?” He said to him, “Yes, Lord, you know that I love you.” He said to him, **“Tend my sheep.” **17 He said to him the third time, “Simon, son of John, do you love me?” Peter was distressed that he had said to him a third time, “Do you love me?” and he said to him, “Lord, you know everything; you know that I love you.” [Jesus] said to him, “Feed my sheep

Where ever the bishop is, there is the Catholic Church of whom Jesus built his church.

What is interesting is that the Jewish religious community who lived side by side with every pope since Peter, witnessed the fact and have officially documented that Jesus of Nazareth is the true founder of the Roman Catholic Church.

 

[JonNC]

Thanks, Jon…as always…just a some more questions…

Each synod is independent of each other? There is no governing body?

And let us say, one synod would like to ordain a female minister/pastor…could it decide on its own? Or would it have to get approval somewhere? from a governing body?

The governing body would be that synod. Sadly, some have already done so, but that isn’t the question. The question is are they still Lutheran, in the same manner that some Old Catholics have ordained women, and the question is, are they still truly Catholic, the issue of infallibility of the pope notwithstanding.

Jon

 

[Nicea325]

Then I would expect him to provide some evidence that it must be done the same way Jesus was baptized. No injunction to do so exists in Scripture, so I would imagine he’d have a very tough time making a coherent argument for it.

Same as above.

Since Scripture is the word of God, I would expect He has some say over the matter! On a more serious note…Paul exhorts Timothy to preach the word. This would mean not preaching those things which are not in accordance with that word.

Unfortunately,preaching the Word of God does not automatically mean the written word only.

 

[onemangang]

No, it is not because I believe that men cannot be infallible. It is that I have no positive scriptural or historical evidence that they have been, as it relates to the post-apostolic church.

I think we had this discussion on another tread already, where you posit **only God can be infallible **and only God can do infallible things. You also accept that scripture is infallible.

In recognizing the infallibility of scripture you posit that infallibility can be recognized!

My assertion is that, in regards to the scriptures, I think they are an infallible collection of books. I also think that if you have an infallible collection of books, it would logically lead to having them infallibly compiled by an infallible source, the Holy Spirit, delivering them through an infallible council, in the modus operandi of the Catholic Church. I think that is recognizable.

Men are not infallible within themselves. The Church is not infallible within Herself apart from Christ, nor is the Pope. Take for instance the argument that the reformers make in regards to an imputation. They declare the imputation was REAL, that there was a REAL transaction taking place. I assert that the Infallibility claim of the Church that is Given by God is REAL and not merely something fictitious. When Christ gave Peter the Keys it was a REAL transaction, giving the Apostles Authority as the Father sends Me I also send you, then breathed on them giving them authority, ALL REAL. That Authority is not fictitious but REAL. We don’t separate the Authority of the Church from the Authority of Christ. It is not an authority that the Church possesses within Herself apart from Christ. God’s modus operandi has used fallible men infallibly to declare things and has continued to do so up to this present day. That is the Modus Operandi that God infallibly ordained to BE! That promise is reserved for the Catholic Church alone!

We have a number of resources at our disposal in determining these things. Scripture, the Fathers, the development of church history, etc.

As great as those are, they are not a living voice, facing the questions of today. John Henry Newman recognized this and wrote about it extensively. You can hear a bit of this discussed in the field of presuppositional apologetics by Marc Ayers, a student of the late Greg Bahnsen. Kind of long like an Hour podcast

calledtocommunion.com/2010/08/episode-14-from-presuppositional-pca-to-rome/

Here is Fr. Robert Barron speaking on this to a degree only a little over 8 minutes long.

youtu.be/RWYwBDqFsuE

The objective standard is Scripture, in the sense of being an infallible authority. That the church is not an infallible authority does not prevent it from being an authority nonetheless. Picking and choosing? No more so than any other ecclesiastical tradition. That Roman Catholicism claims an infallible magisterium does not prevent the same accusation from being directed its way.

The claim being made by the Catholic Church is only fictitious if She is claiming it apart from the Holy Spirit’s guidance, and if She never did receive any REAL Authority through a REAL transaction that was divinely mandated. I would say that the infallibility She has within Her is Real, by a divine mandate, and was promised by He who is infallible.

No, because for the most part, it hasn’t. However, simply saying “we are infallible” doesn’t really answer the question when it is accused of picking and choosing. When a** secularist makes the argument** that the Roman See picked and chose what was and wasn’t Scripture, see how far “that’s impossible, because Rome is infallible” gets you in an argument.

**
It would be an argument that would go nowhere, because of their presupposition of there being no God to reveal Himself**. The denial of God and revealed religion would prevent, them from even entering into the argument. If they would enter into the discussion with an open mind saying “If God did reveal Himself to his Creation, could we recognize it?” If they started from that point, it would inevitably lead them to the Church, and most are not willing to accept Her.

Peace and Love in Christ

 

[IggyAntiochus]

I’m thoroughly enjoying the dialogue here, thanks to all who are participating. One comment: let’s not continue to make Iggy defend the Baptist faith since he has said multiple times that he is moving away from a Baptist understanding.

I have one question for you, Iggy, if you wouldn’t mind making a brief detour. What canon do you accept and why?

I would accept the Western church’s affirmation of the Scriptures which would be the 46 books of the Old Testament and the 27 of the New. However, at this point, you have to differentiate between biblical and canonical. The term canonical does not equate to “inspired.” It means rule of measure of measuring stick. In reference to the Bible, the canonical books are those by which we establish doctrine. The deuterocanonical, or sometimes referred to as *anagignoskomena * (I believe the East uses this term most frequently). The deuterocanon affirms doctrine that is given in the canonical books. The deuterocanon had always been disputed as to its canonical status (though practically no one considered them anything but inspired).

As to why? Because the church has always affirmed them as part of the Bible.

 

[onemangang]

I would accept the Western church’s affirmation of the Scriptures which would be the 46 books of the Old Testament and the 27 of the New. However, at this point, you have to differentiate between biblical and canonical. The term canonical does not equate to “inspired.” It means rule of measure of measuring stick. In reference to the Bible, the canonical books are those by which we establish doctrine. The deuterocanonical, or sometimes referred to as *anagignoskomena * (I believe the East uses this term most frequently). The deuterocanon affirms doctrine that is given in the canonical books. The deuterocanon had always been disputed as to its canonical status (though practically no one considered them anything but inspired).

As to why? Because the church has always affirmed them as part of the Bible.

Not for nothing Iggy you would be a great addition to the Catholic Church. We could use more people that are deep in scripture. Not that anybody else is of lesser value to the body of Christ, I’m just saying. Peace and good will on this journey called life

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

I would accept the Western church’s affirmation of the Scriptures which would be the 46 books of the Old Testament and the 27 of the New. However, at this point, you have to differentiate between biblical and canonical. The term canonical does not equate to “inspired.” It means rule of measure of measuring stick. In reference to the Bible, the canonical books are those by which we establish doctrine. The deuterocanonical, or sometimes referred to as *anagignoskomena * (I believe the East uses this term most frequently). The deuterocanon affirms doctrine that is given in the canonical books. The deuterocanon had always been disputed as to its canonical status (though practically no one considered them anything but inspired).

As to why? Because the church has always affirmed them as part of the Bible.

The Catholic Church used a canon to measure the bible books used to authenticate which books in the bible are inspired of God.

This standard of measuring “Canon” scrutinized all the books, which meant a New Testament book had to be in use for the Mass “Liturgy” since apostolic times, the New Testament books had to be authenticated by an apostle of Jesus by witnesses who lived and walked with the apostles, and the teachings of the books could never conflict with the revelations of Jesus and the teachings of the apostles already in practice handed down to the Catholic Church…, these measuring standards is what the Catholic used in the Canon to authenticate the New Testament books.

The deutero canon = means that these 7 books came down to us in the deutero = second language Greek from the Septuagint, which are the original Hebrew books translated into Greek. These 7 deutero canonical books are listed in protestant bibles as NOT inspired of God, even though Jesus and the Apostles quote from these 7 deutero= books from the New testament.

The protestants re-labeled the 7 deutero canonical books as “apochrypha” = not inspired of God.

When and where protestants attained the “infallibility” to determine an inspired book of God as apochrypha= not inspired of God, no one knows?

You are correct the deuterocanonical books have always been a topic of discussion, but no Catholic Saint or Catholic biblical scholar ever removed them from their Canonized status. The protestants took upon themselves to deny these deutero- books as not inspired of God.

The main objection to these books was that no one had the hebrew counterparts to them, thus they became “Deutero canonical” = they came down to us in the second language of Greek.

 

[PRmerger]

Then I would expect him to provide some evidence that it must be done the same way Jesus was baptized. **No injunction to do so exists in Scripture, **so I would imagine he’d have a very tough time making a coherent argument for it.

Fair enough.

Same as above.

Sorry, I’m not understanding, Iggy.

How is it that you can read the very same Scriptures that all the other Christians are reading and come up with different conclusions as to what they mean?

Since Scripture is the word of God, I would expect He has some say over the matter!

This is curious in light of your first comment, which I bolded.

How is it that you do not apply this paradigm here?

That is, you say “no injunction to do so exists in Scripture”, so therefore we are under no obligation to baptize as Jesus does.

And yet, it’s also true that “no injunction to do so* exists in Scripture” but you say “I would expect” that we do indeed apply this paradigm, even if it’s not mentioned in Scripture.

*Here we mean: “to use Scripture as the canon for discerning what a pastor preaches is the Truth”

On a more serious note…Paul exhorts Timothy to preach the word. This would mean not preaching those things which are not in accordance with that word.

Indeed. This is very Catholic of you to say.

You just have to provide a verse that says that the “word” was only that which was put to writing.

If you cannot provide a verse that says this (and I propose that you cannot) then this is a man-made tradition that you’ve accepted.

 

[PRmerger]

The objective standard is Scripture, in the sense of being an infallible authority.

And yet the Scriptures do not state that they are this “objective standard”. Rather, what the Scriptures say is that the Church is this “objective standard.”

 

[PRmerger]

No, though I am sure a healthy dose of common sense goes a long way. If a pastor comments on, say, 1 Peter 3, as was mentioned earlier, and says baptism doesn’t save you, and the text says baptism now saves you…it should probably raise eyebrows.

Right.

Except what typically happens is a more nebulous example.

A preacher might state, “baptism now saves you” is a symbolic text that means that it saves you from a metaphorical sin, but it doesn’t actually provide salvific grace.

Now what?

Is his interpretation correct?

And how do you know?

The only thing you know for certain is that this preacher is fallible, and that means by definition he’s going to be wrong at some point.

Is this the time when he is?

Each and every time, then, a preacher preaches you’re going to have to keep this thought in the back of your mind, “Is *this *the time that what he’s saying is in error?”

Who wants to go to a Sunday service and have to wonder each time if this is the time that the pastor’s going to get it wrong?

 

[PRmerger]

When a secularist makes the argument that the Roman See picked and chose what was and wasn’t Scripture, see how far “that’s impossible, because Rome is infallible” gets you in an argument.

Actually, that’s not a secularist argument, but a Catholic argument supported by history.

There is no other way that you or any other Christian knows what’s Scripture and what isn’t Scripture, except through the authority of the CC.

 

[PRmerger]

No, it is not because I believe that men cannot be infallible. It is that I have no positive scriptural or historical evidence that they have been, as it relates to the post-apostolic church.

Then you’ll have to 'splain where you think Matthew was fallible in his Gospel.

And where Peter erred in his encyclicals 1 Peter and 2 Peter.

Or where the author of Hebrews was fallible.

If you don’t believe that men can be infallible, then you have to offer some place where these men were fallible in their encyclicals.

 

[PRmerger]

IIn reference to the Bible, the canonical books are those by which we establish doctrine.

Actually, this is incorrect, Iggy.

The CC does not extract its doctrine from the pages of the Bible. Rather, the Bible confirms and affirms that which was already proclaimed for 400 years by the Catholic Church.

IOW: the Catholic Faith was whole and entire before a single word of the NT was ever put to writ.

We do not use the Scriptures to establish our doctrine, Iggy.

 

[Radical]

]There is no other way that you or any other Christian knows what’s Scripture and what isn’t Scripture, except through the authority of the CC.

absolutely! There is no way that I could reject a work such as the first epistle of Clement on say, the fact that it asserts that the phoenix lives 500 years, dies and the kinda rises again. Despite that assertion, I must still acknowledge the possibility of its inspiration and can only reject 1st Clement as scripture b/c the modern CC says it ain’t…no doubt, w/o the authority of the CC, all Protestants from Luther on would have included 1st Clement in their canon of scripture…either that, or you have grossly oversimplied a very complex matter.

 

[ChrisB103]

I would accept the Western church’s affirmation of the Scriptures which would be the 46 books of the Old Testament and the 27 of the New. However, at this point, you have to differentiate between biblical and canonical. The term canonical does not equate to “inspired.” It means rule of measure of measuring stick. In reference to the Bible, the canonical books are those by which we establish doctrine. The deuterocanonical, or sometimes referred to as *anagignoskomena * (I believe the East uses this term most frequently). The deuterocanon affirms doctrine that is given in the canonical books. The deuterocanon had always been disputed as to its canonical status (though practically no one considered them anything but inspired).

As to why? Because the church has always affirmed them as part of the Bible.

Very interesting. Would you agree that it was the Catholic Church (Eastern and Western) that affirmed the 73 book canon?

If yes, then is it possible for an authority (the Church, in this case) to affirm anything that is more authoritative than that authority itself? In other words, it seems to me that to make a ruling on something you have to have at least an equal authority as that which you are making a ruling on. Why would you claim this authority no longer exists?

If no, then what Church was it?

 

[ChrisB103]

absolutely! There is no way that I could reject a work such as the first epistle of Clement on say, the fact that it asserts that the phoenix lives 500 years, dies and the kinda rises again. Despite that assertion, I must still acknowledge the possibility of its inspiration and can only reject 1st Clement as scripture b/c the modern CC says it ain’t…no doubt, w/o the authority of the CC, all Protestants from Luther on would have included 1st Clement in their canon of scripture…either that, or you have grossly oversimplied a very complex matter.

Sure, it’s oversimplified, but the point still stands. Why, for instance, would you accept Hebrews as part of the Bible? Scholars aren’t positive who wrote it, so we can’t be sure (especially in this age) if an apostle wrote it even. There were many different lists of the books in the Bible in the early Church. If not by the authority of the Catholic Church, how would you infallibly know what books are in the Bible? The idea of a fallible list of infallible books is just senseless, so we’ll leave that idea aside completely. We either have to know for sure what books are inerrant, or we can’t trust any of them completely.

 

[PRmerger]

absolutely! There is no way that I could reject a work such as the first epistle of Clement on say, the fact that it asserts that the phoenix lives 500 years, dies and the kinda rises again.

This is begging the question, though, isn’t it?

If Scripture asserts something, then you believe it, right?

Saying, “I don’t believe it’s Scripture because it declares things that Scripture never says!” is a bit, well, circular.

 

[Radical]

The idea of a fallible list of infallible books is just senseless, so we’ll leave that idea aside completely.

good

We either have to know for sure what books are inerrant, or we can’t trust any of them completely

well, from the many manuscripts that we possess we can conclude that no existing book (in the Bible) can be reasonably said to have been copied and preserved w/o any error whatsoever…one might argue that no significant error has crept in, but not that no error whatsoever has crept in. With some error involved, how can we say any book is inerrant?..unless one fudges the meaning of inerrancy? Perhaps what we have is a reliable list of reliable books.

Why, for instance, would you accept Hebrews as part of the Bible?

b/c of the historical testimony in its favour

Scholars aren’t positive who wrote it, so we can’t be sure (especially in this age) if an apostle wrote it even.

agreed

There were many different lists of the books in the Bible in the early Church.

and there still are a number of such lists today…and the list that I accept isn’t the one put forward by the modern CC

If not by the authority of the Catholic Church, how would you infallibly know what books are in the Bible?

I don’t claim infallibility…no man should

We either have to know for sure what books are inerrant, or we can’t trust any of them completely.

do you trust your mother? …even though she isn’t infallible? …there are levels of trust that exist for things that are less than perfect. Do you really think that the Bible put forward by the CC is free from any error whatsoever…no typos, no copyist errors, no translation errors?

 

[Radical]

This is begging the question, though, isn’t it?

If Scripture asserts something, then you believe it, right?

Saying, “I don’t believe it’s Scripture because it declares things that Scripture never says!” is a bit, well, circular.

so you think that I reject the inspiration of the phoenix story b/c it isn’t located elsewhere in the Bible?..and not b/c the phoenix doesn’t exist. Think again.